Cape Town Smile Studios

To order a copy of the book The Big Dental Lie written by author and dentist Dr Ilona Visser, please send an email to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

The following is the introduction as published in the book.

INTRODUCTION TO THE BIG DENTAL LIE

You may well ask: “Why another book on amalgam disease and mercury toxicity?” Well, this book started out in 2005 as a series of lectures delivered over three days to dentists, specialists and doctors in Pretoria. This lecture series was based upon the concepts of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology’s lectures on an Introduction to Biological Dentistry. After this I was requested to present the lectures as a series of papers for publication in dental journals.

As it turned out, the information was just too lengthy to publish in a dental journal (and the reader base was also very small). I then undertook to compile it in book form and make it available to both the profession and the public. During the last 18 months every available moment has been dedicated to writing. The first draft of the manuscript was more than 550 pages, including more than 100 pages of references. This, I decided, was too long to publish. It had to be cut and trimmed to what you are now holding in your hands.

So what’s the difference between this book and its predecessors? The answer is simple. Most other books on the topic, if not all of them, have focussed on either Joe Public or the scientist.

The result in the first case, as you may imagine, is that the scientist will not read the book as it contains minimal ‘scientific, peer-reviewed evidence’ (that’s the stuff dentists and scientists want to see). As you read through the book, visit www.ctss.co.za and refer to the list of scientific papers (in an effort to save costs and some trees the extensive list is not printed in this book). You will realise from the name of each journal in which country it was published, and thus where the research was done. Note that not much research has been conducted in the United States. In fact, U.S. researchers have complained that, once they mention the topic of mercury from amalgam to the National Institute of Health and other such bodies, who finance research, they cannot obtain funds. That is why so much research has been done in Scandinavian countries who are many years ahead on research concerning amalgams and mercury toxicity from amalgams compared to that which is currently conducted in the U.S.

Joe Public will not read a book aimed at the dentist, as it will most likely contain terminology and concepts with which he is unfamiliar, making reading and the understanding thereof impossible.

The aim of this book is to reconcile the two concepts (scientific proof and ‘plain English’), by providing a book that is easy to read, uncomplicated, and unproblematic to verify, by referring to ‘scientific, peer-reviewed’ literature.

In this book you will find sufficient evidence to realise that you have been lied to for nearly 200 years by the ADA, the FDI and dentists.

Lie Number 1

Dentists trained some years ago will tell you that amalgam does not release mercury, that amalgam is a set, inert, stable product.

This was the official viewpoint until a few years ago. Actually, if you view the video ‘Smoking Tooth’ on www.iaomt.org you must wonder how they could really tell you that lie with a poker-straight face. The ‘smoke’ is actually mercury vapour coming off a 25-year old amalgam, and is not a magic trick or illusion.

Lie Number 2

These days organised dentistry acknowledges that amalgams do release mercury, but “the amount is too small to cause harm”.

A report that contains the collective views of an international group of experts was published in 2003. Their findings were that “Dental amalgam fillings are the primary source of mercury exposure for the general population”.

Lie number 3

The dental profession is now taught: “So OK, amalgams release mercury, but you know what, it is only a problem in those people that are allergic to it, and very few people are.”

In 1984 the ADA reported that the number of people allergic to amalgam was only 5%, which would, according to the statistics of epidiomolgy, be considered an epidemic. In the USA that would amount to more than 14 million people.

In 1989 the ADA lowered the figure to 1.1 million and in 1991 it increased the percentage again to 3%. These figures were based on the results of patch tests, which, as you will see later, are grossly inaccurate to determine allergies to heavy metals. When a blood analysis is done, it is more likely to be near 90%.

Even the SADA, the South African version of the ADA, has maintained that the general population of some 44 million people should not be concerned about amalgams, as less than 10% of the population is ‘sensitive to the mercury from their amalgams’. Some dental researchers have claimed: “No data has been presented that proves it likely that mercury impacts from amalgam lead to health effects other than allergic reactions. Risk studies have, however, indicated that a possibility for health damage caused by mercury from amalgam fillings exists in a small minority of the population.” What they fail to say is that this ‘small minority’ consists of millions of people!

SADA’s less than 10% of the population in South Africa alone would imply that, in South Africa with a population of 44 million, up to 4 million people could be sensitive to the mercury from their amalgams. No small number. If a drug affected less than 10% of people it would be taken off the market, as was the fate of Vioxx, a drug for the treatment of inflammation in the joints that was not as harsh on the gut as aspirin. I don’t want to go into too much detail about this big lie that was told by the manufacturer of a drug, but I just cannot let the opportunity pass me by! (You can read all about it on the internet. Simply Google Merck Vioxx.)

On 30 September 2004, Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx, issued a worldwide recall, stopping all distribution and sales of the drug. This occurred after the FDA approved it only some five months previously (April 2004) for the treatment of acute attacks of migraine.

On 19 August 2005, the first Vioxx lawsuit was determined and the plaintiff was awarded $24-million in actual damages plus an additional $229-million in exemplary, punitive damages by the jury. The deceased, Robert Ernst, a Wal-Mart employee, died of a heart attack while using Vioxx. Court documents revealed that Merck knew that patients taking the typical starting dose of Vioxx had a 50% greater chance of heart attacks and sudden cardiac death than patients on Celebrex, (a similar drug made by an opposition company, Pfizer Inc.), but they still sold it. Why? Because Merck seemed to care more about profits from the drug than the public's welfare! Vioxx generated $2.5-billion in sales for Merck in 2003 alone.

And this was only the beginning, as thousands of lawsuits followed. Well, what do you expect if more that 20 million people was presribed the drug?

Merck first vowed to fight each Vioxx suit and in 2005 it set aside $675-million for legal expenses, although some analysts commented on how its liability could be $18-billion. But the financial wizards at Merck were one step ahead of thousands more claims – in 2007 they set up a fund that covers claims of death and lesser injuries, and reserved $1.9-billion to fight some more that 26,600 Vioxx lawsuits. Since then Merck, up until September 2009, has had to pay out claims by the families of more than 3,100 users of Vioxx who died of heart attacks or strokes blamed on the drug, totalling some $4.85-billion in settlements. Claimants’ lawyers will be paid as much as $1.55-billion of the settlement fund.

And if that is not all, they currently face a securities fraud lawsuit involving the company's disclosures to investors about its withdrawal of Vioxx.

It has been made public in court that company documents showed they knew about the health risks of Vioxx, but Merck denied that it had withheld data on these risks and said it acted responsibly in sharing safety data with the FDA. However, it seems the company was not diligent in obtaining updated information regarding the safety of the drug and data that showed a link between Vioxx use, heart attacks and strokes. A 2000 study reported that the drug caused five times more heart attacks than another painkiller, Naproxen. Merck took two more years to bring about a change in Vioxx’s label concerning side effects.

From internal memos, dated 21 November 1996, Merck officials ‘wrestled’ with the issue of Vioxx's dangerous effects, because they considered running a trial to demonstrate that Vioxx was gentler on the digestive system than other painkillers, such as aspirin. Merck officials were concerned that the study would also reveal Vioxx's cardiovascular risks. The controversy continued into 1997, when a Merck official, Briggs Morrison, sent an email, dated 25 February 1997, arguing that, unless test subjects received aspirin, the revealed cardiovascular risks would ‘kill [the] drug’.

As is apparent from the published emails, there was a concerted effort to bury negative evidence and even distort the drug trials by excluding heart patients from the Vioxx studies. It was proposed that people with high risk of cardiovascular problems be excluded from the study, so that the difference between the rate of cardiovascular problems associated with Vioxx and other drugs ‘would not be evident’.

Then, on 9 March 2000, another internal memo was sent via email which stated that Vioxx's cardiovascular side effects ‘are clearly there’ and are a ‘shame’ This blatant lie could have gone unnoticed, if it hadn't been for The Wall Street Journal's breaking story. It was noticed, however, as it has sparked a series of media coverage, stock market losses and huge profits for claimants’ lawyers.

Merck was caught telling a lie, and patients ultimately paid the price.

Lie number 4

“Risk studies have, however, indicated that a possibility for health damage caused by mercury from amalgam fillings exists in a small minority of the population.”

In South Africa, as in the rest of the world, dentists such as the Director of oral medicine from the Department of Health, maintain that “I have not seen scientific evidence in the literature or at dental conferences that mercury in such fillings (amalgams) can cause problems such as chronic fatigue.” Well, actually there is enough evidence – sufficient to fill a book!

But then they are also quick to warn you to not just have the amalgams removed, as a lot of mercury is released during the cutting of the filling, but don’t worry, just don’t inhale (too) much of it. In any case, the greatest risk, according to them, is to the dentist drilling out the filling, not to you, the patient.

Numerous dental academics have acknowledged: ‘The margin of safety between the mercury burdens some persons with amalgam fillings experience and the burden that can set off illness, is small’.

The Norwegian National Institute for Public Health points out that “Although the overall judgment is that it is unlikely that the metals of lead, mercury and cadmium represent a significant health risk in the Norwegian population, it must be said that the safety margin for all of thee metals is relatively small in relation to the potential for triggering subtle health effects”.

However, in 2003, the Norwegian Directorate for Health and Social Affairs published a national clinical guideline for the use of dental filling materials. I would like to quote some of their findings (with my comments / explanations in italics):

“No limit has been established for safe/harmless influence (of mercury). This means that there is no safe level of exposure to mercury.” The least amount of mercury is toxic. I cannot stress this enough! This has also been confirmed by the WHO. You will find the science for this fact in this book.

“Sub-clinical effects have, however, been shown at doses equalling those which some persons can receive from amalgam fillings.” Sub-clinical means the patient has been affected on cellular level, but there are no visible signs yet.

“In epidemiological studies no relationship has been found between amalgam fillings and illness, but effects on health cannot be ruled out.” This is due to the fact that mercury has so many levels on which it can affect health, that one cannot link a certain amount of fillings to a certain consequence. If it were that easy we would have stopped using amalgams long ago.

“The amount of mercury vapour released from amalgam fillings increases when chewing, brushing teeth and with bruxism (grinding the teeth).” View a video of a ‘Smoking tooth’ on www.iaomt.org. The ‘smoke’ is actually mercury vapour relased by a 25-year old amalgam.

“Considerably lower amounts of mercury have been found after removal of fillings from some of the same people.” By having their amalgams removed their mercury levels dropped, thus proving that amalgams were the cause of the high mercury levels in the first place. It is important to understand that, due to mercury’s effect on most protein functions, mercury can disturb almost all functions in which proteins are involved. Thus almost every protein in the body is a potential target, making mercurials potent, but unspecific, enzyme inhibitors. This is apart from all the other cellular effects that mercury has. Thus, if mercury is in your body IT WILL AFFECT YOU. (My pharmacology professor might be able to now understand how one metal can cause more than 200 symptoms!)

“During the last 10-15 years, documentation has become available indicating that mercury from amalgam fillings is traced to (or found in) locations in the human body where it is unwanted. It has been shown that the amount of mercury in the brains of deceased persons correlates with their number of amalgam fillings.”

“The mother’s mercury passes through the placenta, and the mercury concentration of foetuses correlate with the number of amalgam fillings in their mothers. The amount of mercury in breast milk increases with increasing numbers of amalgam fillings in the mother. Those who have amalgam fillings have more mercury in their body fluids than persons without amalgam fillings.” This is critical as it is well-known that the brain of the developing foetus is its most vulnerable to toxins during the formative months.

“The margin of safety between the mercury burdens some persons with amalgam fillings experience and the burden that can set off illness is small.”

“Mercury from amalgam fillings is the only component of dental restorative materials that is considered as an actual environmental problem.”

“Consideration of both public health and the environment requires that the use of heavy metals be held at the lowest possible level.”

In the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment’s ‘Handlingsplan for helse-og miljøfarlige kjemikalier’ (Action plan for chemicals that are a hazard to health and the environment) from 1999, strong action is recommended in working to reduce the release of, or phase out, of environmental toxins. Mercury is among the most problematic of environmental toxins.

Before you start reading this book, I would like to relate the following true story. Mountain water flows into and through the town of George in the Eastern Cape. The town is nestled between the mountains and the sea, into which mountain water eventually flows.

Some years ago a farmer moved his cows down from the farm in the mountains to a valley situated between George and the sea. Within weeks his cows’ milk production fell, the cattle started walking and acting strange (staring ahead, not moving, for hours at a time). The calves appeared grossly deformed and had to be put down, or were even born dead. Remember, this was a prize herd that cost the farmer a heap of money to maintain. The local and state vets could not find an answer. During that time the farmer heard of a doctor in George that treated patients for heavy metal toxicities. He had the cattle tested, and found that they were all mercury toxic. Once chelated they returned to normal. But where did the mercury come from, as there were no industries in George that used mercury? It transpired that there were so many dental clinics that, together with the contribution made by the public having amalgams in their teeth, they were dumping huge amounts of mercury into the wastewater. The farmer was forced to move his cattle back to the mountain farm.

I sincerely hope that I have been able to cover all aspects related to amalgam poisoning in this book, and that you, as the reader, will be able to follow and understand the basic concepts of heavy metal poisoning. If, as a lay person, there are finer details that you do not understand, don’t worry too much about it. Remember that this book is also written for the healthcare practitioner who will need more in-depth discussions on certain topics.

This book explains the facts concerning the case against the continued use of dental amalgam. Although I have tried to refrain from giving personalised statements, I did feel it necessary to give my view on certain topics. In some cases I will also give you the results of patients’ experiences with amalgam toxicity. But in all of this I will provide you with sufficient ‘scientific peer reviewed’ evidence that amalgam fillings are toxic so as to erase any doubt or misgivings that you may hold.

The research referred to in this book relates mostly to elemental mercury or vapour, since it is that form of mercury that is released by amalgams (there are three main forms of mercury). Some time is also spent on other issues, apart from mercury toxicity, relating to amalgam toxicity, such as the galvanic action of metals in the mouth.

Due to the large volume of information regarding the toxicity of amalgams, I will concentrate on the evidence of harm from amalgams, and not discuss scientific evidence that could not detect amalgam fillings as being harmful.

Herewith then are the results of many hours of time spent away from my family, friends and patients.

Dr Ilona Visser

Cape Town, South Africa

March 2010